How Can Americans Create Private Sector Jobs?

From the Institute for Justice:

The solution to America’s jobs problem lies not with budget-busting federally mandated “stimulus” programs.

Instead, what is needed are specific reforms that wouldn’t cost taxpayers, would create a broader tax base for cash-strapped cities and states, and would provide opportunity for millions of Americans who worry where their next paycheck is coming from.

As demonstrated by a series of eight new reports issued in October 2010 by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, one of the principal obstacles to creating new jobs and entrepreneurial activity in cities across the country is the complex maze of regulations cities and states impose on small businesses. IJ’s “city study” reports are filled with real-world examples of specific restrictions that often make it impossible for entrepreneurs to create jobs for themselves, let alone for others.

Chip Mellor, the president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, said, “If the nation is looking to the federal government to create jobs in America, it is looking in the wrong place. If we want to grow our economy, we must remove government-imposed barriers to honest enterprise at the city and state levels. Remove those barriers, and you will see a return to the optimism and opportunity that are hallmarks of the American Dream.”

IJ’s eight reports document how irrational and anti-competitive regulations block entrepreneurship. More often than not, these government-imposed restrictions on economic liberty are put in place at the behest of existing businesses that are not shy about using government force to keep out competition. The Institute for Justice’s city studies examine regulations imposed on a wide range of occupations in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Newark, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

The TSA: We Overreact Better Than Anyone

From ReasonTV:

We're the Transportation Security Administration. We're working hard to make sure you enjoy a safe flight. And while we cannot apprehend every terrorist, you can count on us to do what we're trained to do whenever there's a security breach--overreact to tiny threats.

Overreact to tiny threats; ignore the big ones. That's what we do, and we do it better than anyone.

The Big Government Shakedown

From ReasonTV:

Today's Tea Party movement germinated from local taxpayer groups focused on issues like school spending and property taxes, says Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the new book, Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer.

Malanga's work focuses on how national trends often grow out of local ones. In his last book, The New New Left, he looked at how a coalition of public-sector unions and government-backed social activists came to control the machinery of local governments. In Shakedown, he shows how this group continued its march all the way to the White House.

Reason.tv's June Arunga sat down with Malanga to talk about how this coalition has pushed government at all levels to the brink of bankruptcy and what reforms are needed to combat its vast influence.

A Lying Politician? Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Citizen's Against Government Waste's Porker of the Month for October 2010 is Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

What do you do when you and your friends in congress go on a taxpayer funded spending binge, only to see massive unemployment and a floundering economy?

Just say something that sounds good and has zero credibility.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is CAGW's October 2010 Porker of the Month for exaggerating the effect of the failed stimulus program, exaggerating jobs numbers, and lying to the American people about the true economic picture.

Congratulations, Debbie!

Legalize Marijuana? It's None Of Their Business

From Reason TV:

On November 2, 2010, California voters will decide whether or not to legalize marijuana.

If passed, Proposition 19 would control marijuana like alcohol, allowing adults 21 years of age and over to possess up to an ounce of pot for personal consumption and grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet. The initiative would also allow local governments to tax and regulate the commercial cultivation, transport, and sale of marijuana.

In order to get a handle on the debate surrounding. Prop 19, we spoke to both supporters and opponents of the initiative.

Arizona School Choice Fight Goes to Supreme Court

From the Institute for Justice:

On November 3, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments in the case Garriot v. Winn. Arizona, like many states, offers tax credits to individuals and businesses for donations to fund scholarships for students to attend private schools. The goal of these programs is to give as many students as possible the resources they need to get a good education. The Dennard family has benefited from this program.

Lars Johnson for Congress Minnesota's 1st District

Lars Johnson, the limited government candidate in Minnesota's 1st District.

Former Madam Has Better Ideas Than The Big Boys

Former Madam Kristin Davis running for governor of New York lays out a more realistic plan for solving New York's problems.

Obama Administration Threatens California

Matt Welch of Reason Magazine discusses the intimidation tactics being used against Proposition 19 (legalization of marijuana).

Andrew Napolitano On Natural Rights

Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses Natural Rights:

Free Expression in Higher Education

Reason TV talks with Greg Lukianoff about how free speech is suppressed on college campuses:

If you think that, like the Macarena, campus speech codes were mocked into obscurity during the 1990s, think again. Approximately 71 percent of American campuses still impose highly restrictive "red light speech codes" on college students, notes Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Recently Reason.tv's Ted Balaker sat down with Lukianoff to discuss the sorry state of free expression in higher education, why you can't call Harvard men sissies, and how a student got expelled for criticizing a university president on Facebook.

Drug War Hypocrisy

The late Great Harry Browne comments on Drug War Hypocrisy:



One of Harry Browne's commercials from his 2000 campaign for President:

Don't Make Promises You Won't Keep

More on the false hope of Republican promises. From Lew Rockwell.com:

Promises, Promises

by Laurence M. Vance

How hard is it to position yourself to the right of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?

This is all the House Republicans did recently when they released their "Pledge to America" at a Virginia hardware store on September 23.

Mimicking their 1994 "Contract with America," this new Republican proposal sets forth their legislative agenda should the American people see fit to give the Republican Party a majority in the House of Representatives in the upcoming election.

Promises, promises.

Do Republicans think we’re stupid? Do they think we’ve forgotten the eight-year presidency of Republican George W. Bush? Do they think we’ve forgotten that Republicans had an absolute majority in both houses of Congress for over four years of the Bush administration? Do they think we’ve forgotten that the Republican Party controlled the Congress during the last six years of Clinton’s presidency?

The empty promises, grandiose claims, vain assurances, and blatant lies in the Republican "Pledge to America" mean that it’s not worth the paper and toner it would take to print out a copy. Republicans are clearly trying to capitalize on voter discontent with the Democratic Party, garner the support of the Tea Party movement, and sucker Americans into voting them back into power.

Promises, promises.


Before even examining the text of the "Pledge to America," I would like to point out two major practical problems. First, like the "Contract with America," this is a House Republican document. And like what happened with the "Contract with American," there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will pass legislation proposed by the House – assuming that Republicans even regain control of the Senate. The second problem is, like what happened with the "Contract with America," we have a Democratic president with veto power. So, even if the Pledge is a good thing (it isn’t), and even if the Republicans are sincere (they aren’t), there is no guarantee that Republicans will accomplish anything even if they do win back control of the House. And as it was pointed back out in 2000: "The combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." Is there any doubt that things will turn out any different this time?

But what about the text of the Pledge itself? Well, the preface is a lie. The foreword is a lie. All five of the plans introduced are a lie. All six chapters are a lie. All forty-five pages are a lie. Even the cover is a lie.

Surely, Mr. Vance, you are exaggerating. You are being too hard on the Republicans. You are making baseless accusations. You couldn’t possibly have carefully read the Republican’s Pledge.

Is that so? We need to look no further than the cover. It says that the "Pledge to America" is "a new governing agenda built on the priorities or our nation, the principles we stand for and America’s founding values." Among other things, America’s founding values certainly include liberty and limited government. Is this Pledge or any other Republican agenda built on these things?

Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has described American society when it was based on the "founding values" of liberty and limited government:

Let’s talk about the economic system that existed in the United States from the inception of the nation to the latter part of the 19th century. The principles are simple to enumerate: No income taxation (except during the Civil War), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, economic regulations, licensure laws, drug laws, immigration controls, or coercive transfer programs, such as farm subsidies and education grants.

There was no federal department of labor, agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, or homeland security. There was no SEC, DEA, FEMA, OSHA, or EPA.

There was no Federal Reserve System and no paper money or legal-tender laws (except during the Civil War). People used gold and silver coins as money.

There were no foreign military bases and no involvement in foreign wars. The size of the military was small.

Now, I ask you a simple question: Does that way of life resemble even in the remotest way the way of life under which Americans live today? Of course it doesn’t, because the way of life under which we live today is precisely opposite to that under which our American ancestors lived. Today’s Americans do live under all those programs, departments, and agencies, and principles that were absent during the first 125 years or so of American history.

Oh, the "Pledge to America" talks about Republican plans to "advance policies that promote greater liberty" and about how their plan "stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government," but then the Republicans propose, not to cease funding any of the above mentioned programs, agencies, and policies, but – are you ready – "to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." My, what an ambitious plan to promote liberty and limited government!


In the preface to the Pledge, the Republicans have the audacity to complain about "an unchecked executive" as if the presidency of George W. Bush never occurred. They pledge to "honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers," and in particular "the Tenth Amendment." I’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. They know the right words to use to sucker conservative advocates of the government strictly following the Constitution to vote for them. Of course, if Republicans really believed in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, they would introduce legislation to eliminate 95 percent of what the federal government does.

The foreword to the Pledge introduces the five Republican plans:

A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive
A plan to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government
A plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care
A plan to reform Congress and restore trust
A plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad
One thing in particular in the foreword that stands out is the Republicans claim that they want to "protect our entitlement programs for seniors and future generations." This shows without a doubt that Republicans don’t have the slightest intention of honoring the Constitution, following the Tenth Amendment, stopping "out-of-control spending," and reducing "the size of government."

I want to focus in particular on the first and last of the Republican plans in the "Pledge to America." I will, however, not neglect the lies in plans two, three, and four.

The Republican plan "to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive" sounds good on the surface. It blasts Keynesian economics, Obama’s stimulus, tax increases, federal regulations, job-killing policies, and small business mandates while promising to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive by permanently stopping all job-killing tax hikes, giving small businesses a tax deduction, reining in the red tape factory in Washington, DC, and repealing job-killing small business mandates. Don’t be deceived: Even Republicans sometimes look good when compared with Democrats. However, alongside the standards of liberty, limited government, and strict constitutionalism, Republican economic policies are not much better than those of Democrats. This Republican plan mentions how a Republican Congress enacted the child tax credit in the 1990s. This is a good thing, as are all tax credits. However, why is this tax credit progressive; that is, why does this tax credit begin to phase out above a certain income level and end completely at another? And even worse, if the amount of the tax credit exceeds the tax liability, the unused portion is refundable in the form of an "additional child tax credit." This means it is an income transfer program, as is the Republican-instituted earned income tax credit.

Another troubling thing about the Republican economic plan is its attitude toward business regulation:

Small businesses must have certainly that the rules won’t change every few months so they can get back on their feet.

Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy.

The Republicans seem to be saying that as long as federal regulations are relatively constant and not excessive then they are okay. In fact, they give their threshold as $100 million: "To provide stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more." But if Republicans really wanted to "honor the Constitution," then they would require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 or more not $100 million or more.


The last section of this economic plan mentions a "job-killing small business mandate." Since when are Republicans against these? Is there a greater "job-killing small business mandate" than the minimum wage? Did not even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell say a few years ago that "raising the minimum wage" was a good idea? Outside of Ron Paul, would a Republican member of Congress ever publicly question the concept of a federal minimum wage? What it all comes down to is this: Democratic mandates are bad; Republican mandates (or Democratic mandates they accept) are good.

The promise in plan 2 "to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government" is laughingly pathetic when you realize that the national debt increased under the Republicans from $5,727,776,738,304.64 at the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001 to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the last day of Bush’s second term in 2009. Republicans speak negatively in this plan about "the bailouts of businesses and entities that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior." Yet, this is the same Republican Party that helped the Democratic Party pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the first bailout bill).

The Republican plan "to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care" is only being proposed because it is a Democratic takeover of health care and not a Republican one, as I have written about here and will write more about in the future. I would like to point out, however, that the proposal to "establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion" is a little overdue. What were all the pro-life Republicans in the House doing when the Republican Party had an absolute majority in the House and Senate for over four years under a Republican president? They were funding Planned Parenthood, that’s what.

The promise in plan 4 to "reform Congress and restore trust" is more smoke and mirrors. The Republicans lament that "for too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government." Their solution is to "require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified." The real truth is that Congress has sought to circumvent the Constitution almost since the day it took effect in 1789. Citing specific constitutional authority for a bill is an empty gesture. Just as Nancy Pelosi cited the Constitution’s "commerce clause" in defense of the health care bill so Republicans will cite the phrase "to provide for the common defense" in the Constitution’s preamble to justify funding drone attacks in Pakistan.

The Republican plan "to keep our nation secure at home and abroad" is the most objectionable part of the "Pledge to America." It can be summarized as: xenophobia, war, empire: vote Republican. It consists of one lie after another followed by one bad policy after another. It promises to keep terrorists out of America by keeping foreigners locked up in Guantanamo – as if there were any connection between the two. What this really means, of course, is that Republicans are in favor of the U.S. military picking up anyone anywhere in the world and holding them indefinitely without charge or trial – or until they are killed and their deaths reported as suicides.

This plan "to keep our nation secure at home and abroad" is sure to create more terrorists, further erode civil liberties in the name of national security and fighting the war on drugs, line the pockets of the military-industrial and security-industrial complexes, further blacken the name of the United States throughout the world, provoke a war with Iran, further bankrupt the treasury, senselessly cause more U.S. troops to die in vain, and unjustly kill more foreigners.


What is tragically ironic is that a liberal group earlier this year placed an ad in the New York Review of Books condemning Obama’s actions "to keep our nation secure at home and abroad" as in some respects "worse than Bush":

First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of "terrorism," merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly. Second, Obama says that the government can detain you indefinitely, even if you have been exonerated in a trial, and he has publicly floated the idea of "preventive detention." Third, the Obama administration, in expanding the use of unmanned drone attacks, argues that the U.S. has the authority under international law to use extrajudicial killing in sovereign countries with which it is not at war.

Such measures by Bush were widely considered by liberals and progressives to be outrages and were roundly, and correctly, protested. But those acts which may have been construed (wishfully or not) as anomalies under the Bush regime have now been consecrated into "standard operating procedure" by Obama, who claims, as did Bush, executive privilege and state secrecy in defending the crime of aggressive war.

The most wretched lie in this fifth Republican plan is the statement that "the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015." This is political fear mongering at its worse that is designed to sucker Americans into voting Republican and justify funding of provocative boondoggles like missile defense. U.S. foreign policy is already aggressive, reckless, and belligerent enough without the Republican plan "to keep our nation secure at home and abroad" making it even more so.

Promises, promises – that’s all the Republican Party is good for. Promises to cut spending. Promises to cut the deficit. Promises to cut the debt. Promises to reduce federal regulations. Promises to reduce the size of government. Promises to reduce the scope of government. Promises to do better than the Democrats. Promises to follow the Constitution.

But not only does the Republican Party never deliver, it can always be counted on to increase spending, increase the deficit, increase the debt, expand federal regulations, expand the size of government, expand the scope of government, do worse than the Democrats, and make a mockery of the Constitution.

The Republican "Pledge to America" is not, as Bob Barr says, a "good and sound document." It is political propaganda, pure and simple, from a party desperate to regain power.

Promises, pledges, lies: vote Republican.

Never, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, trust in, rely on, or put any hope in Republican promises. As night follows day, disappointment, vexation, and anger are sure to follow.

October 19, 2010

Laurence M. Vance writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn't. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Rebel Pilot

From Lew Rockwell.com:

Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'
by Michael Roberts

October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.


Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.

As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.

"Am I under arrest?" I asked.


"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."

"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"

"We just need to hold you here so he can…"

"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.

"Detain you while we…"

Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.

We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?

"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.

"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."


"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."

"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.

As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.

The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.

His reply: "That’s irrelevant."

It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.


"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.

"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."

"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"

"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."

"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.

"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"

"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."

"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."


Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.

As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.

It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.

Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.
Memphis, TN 38111
901.237.6308
FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com

October 18, 2010

Michael S. Roberts is a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Republicans Are Hypocrites Who Aren't Serious About Solving The Federal Debt Problem

The Libertarian Party says that most Republicans aren't proposing any real solutions to control the burgeoning debt of the Federal Government:

With prospects of a Republican takeover of Congress, Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle posed this question: "In order to balance the budget, where will the GOP pull the plug first: on Granny, or on foreign wars?"

Hinkle continued, "Of course, Republicans may have no serious intention of cutting federal deficits or spending, and their complaints about 'out-of-control spending' might be hypocrisy."

Over 60% of federal spending is in three areas: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military. It would be impossible to eliminate the federal deficit without cutting entitlements or military spending, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tea Party leader Dick Armey recently called Social Security a ponzi scheme.

LP Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "Social Security is universal mandatory welfare for seniors. It's very un-libertarian."

Benedict continued, "I suppose one way to maintain the Social Security scheme would be to rapidly grow the U.S. working population, such as by opening up our borders to increase immigration. However, Republican congressmen have tried to duck their responsibility for the bad economy by scapegoating illegal immigrants, so allowing a massive influx of immigrants is politically infeasible in the near future.

"Each child born in the U.S. immediately faces a debt of over $40,000. Ironically, it might not be long before American youth start ditching this debt foisted on them by their parents and grandparents, and start leaving America in search of better opportunity abroad.

"To make Social Security solvent as our population ages, the federal government either has to raise the tax, or cut the benefits. The last significant change to Social Security was a tax increase approved by Ronald Reagan. Libertarians favor cutting Social Security benefits, and we oppose tax increases. Libertarians would prefer to allow workers to opt out of Social Security. Perhaps entitlements can be cut gradually, rather than slashed abruptly, but that depends on taking action sooner rather than later.

"On the October 17 'Fox News Sunday,' I saw that Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina was repeatedly asked what parts of entitlements she would cut to balance the budget, and she repeatedly dodged the question."

The recent Republican 'Pledge to America' makes no mention of cutting entitlements or the military.

Benedict continued, "Republicans refuse to say where they would cut entitlement spending, and of course Republicans oppose cutting military spending or ending America's foreign wars. Therefore, I'd say that Republicans are hypocrites who aren't serious about solving the federal debt problem."

A video lampooning John Boehner and the Republican 'Pledge to America' was created by Travis Irvine, Libertarian for U.S. Congress in Ohio District 12.

Benedict continued, "Only Libertarians recognize that we can't have it all for much longer. The longer Republicans and Democrats flush money down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sooner the government will have to cut benefits for Granny. Of course, Congress may never have the courage to pass legislation to cut entitlements. In that scenario, Granny will eventually start experiencing 'rolling blackouts,' or perhaps a total system collapse.

"Libertarians stand ready to cut spending across the board. Perhaps the question Granny needs to answer is, 'Which do you love more: your Social Security check, or foreign wars?'"

The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

It's Friday And Our Lips Are Sealed

I love 80's music and here is one of my favorite groups from the early 80's, the Go Go's.

Trains to Nowhere

A ReasonTV piece on the plan to spend $500 million on a light rail line in Detroit. From ReasonTV:

Detroit has become a place Hollywood directors come for great wreckage shots. One quarter of the city's 140 square miles are deserted. Detroit public school students boast the nation's worst reading scores, the products of a corruption-ridden school system that recently flirted with bankruptcy. Detroit bested Baltimore in 2009 to take the dreaded "murder capital" title. It may also be the worst place in the country to have a heart attack: prepare to wait half an hour for an ambulance.

In a town lacking essential services, what do local leaders and federal politicians have in mind for helping the city? What's needed to hoist Detroit back to its 1950 heyday, when it was America's fourth largest city, with more than double its current population?

Why, light rail, of course!

The Motor City is moving ahead with a plan to build a 9.3-mile light rail line that will run from downtown Detroit to the edge of the suburbs. It'll cost an estimated $500 million. Three-quarters of the bill will be paid by federal taxpayers, with the rest picked up by a consortium of foundations and businesses.

If built, the project will end up on the Mackinac Center's list of government-subsidized white elephants touted as "crucial to Detroit's comeback," its "rebirth," and pivotal to "turning things around." In reality, it'll just be another train to nowhere, much like Detroit's existing light rail line, the unfortunately named "People Mover," which operates at 2.5% of capacity.

For more on Detroit's light rail folly, check out Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore and Shikha Dalmia's rebuttal to PBS's recent documentary, "Beyond the Motor City," which laid out the case that light rail can, yes, "revive" Detroit.

American Politics a Waste of Time?

Jack Hunter comments on the state of American politics and the valid reason so many are apathetic:

Free to Sell Pumpkins Again

This past May I did a post about the City of Lake Elmo Minnesota which had a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of products not grown in Lake Elmo. The Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit challenging this ordinance. In response to favorable judge's opinion on the lawsuit, the city has backed down. From the Institute for Justice:

Farmers in Lake Elmo, Minn., can breathe a sigh of relief after the city tore down its protectionist trade barriers, restoring to farmers their freedom to sell produce grown outside city limits. Lake Elmo farmers, who faced 90 days in jail and a thousand dollars in fines for violating the trade ban, can now import and sell produce they have grown themselves, as well as sell produce they’ve purchased from farmers around the country.

“I’m thrilled that the city backed down and decided to let us continue serving the many people who’ve been coming to our farm for decades to buy our plants and produce,” said Keith Bergmann, who teamed up with farmers around the country and the Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter (IJ-MN) to challenge the law in court. “Free trade helps ensure that our farm and others around the country remain economically viable so we can preserve our decades-long tradition of helping families get that perfect pumpkin or Christmas tree and enjoy the holiday season.”

The change was made in response to a federal judge’s opinion in August that Lake Elmo’s protectionist law likely violated the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce. Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel stated that the law “squelche[d] competition . . . altogether, leaving no room for investment from outside,” and would likely have “obliterate[ed] . . . the Lake Elmo markets in pumpkins and Christmas trees. . . . In fact, Plaintiffs have shown that the markets will be wiped out.”

The city of Lake Elmo imposed the protectionist law in 2008, requiring that all agricultural produce sold on Lake Elmo’s farms must actually be grown in Lake Elmo. This would have significantly damaged the Bergmanns, and others like them, who grow produce elsewhere and sell it from their Lake Elmo farm. Judge Noel’s opinion recommended that a preliminary injunction be issued preventing the law from being enforced while the Institute for Justice lawsuit is litigated. The City Council’s change in the law now makes a preliminary injunction unnecessary.

“The Constitution was crafted to guarantee free trade among the states,” said IJ-MN attorney Anthony Sanders, lead counsel in the lawsuit. “Lake Elmo farmers never should have been threatened with 90 days in jail and a thousand dollars in fines for simply selling pumpkins grown outside city limits. Thankfully, their rights—and the rights of their trading partners around the country—have been vindicated.”

The change in the law allows the Bergmanns and other Lake Elmo farms to apply for a permit to supplement their agricultural sales with goods not grown on site. The Bergmanns once again have the freedom to sell out-of-state pumpkins and Christmas trees from their farm, something they have done every year for over 25 years.

Opened in 2005, IJ-MN is one of four state chapters of the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit public interest law firm founded in 1991 to advance economic liberty, free speech, property rights and educational choice.

Click here for more on the lawsuit.

Protecting Us From Savings on Milk

I received this email from Kwik Trip, a gas and convenience store chain:

James,

To stay in compliance with the Minimum Milk Markup Law, we can no longer accept milk coupons. We will also not be issuing anymore milk coupons. We will continue to offer the lowest milk price possible.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Brenda Waldera
Marketing Project Manager
Kwik Trip Inc.

Thank goodness for our politicians and government protecting us from lower milk prices! Minnesota and many other states also have minimum prices on gasoline and other products.

What gives politicians and the government the authority to set prices? If Kwik Trip or some other store wants to sell milk for less why shouldn't they be able to.

Anyone who claims we live in a country with a free market economy either is lying or doesn't understand what a free market is.

Family Dog Shot Three Times by Police

Police always shoot the dogs when conducting a SWAT team raid, they have shot the family dog when stopping to get directions and now they shoot a Labrador while investigating a burglary. Why? Because the dog was barking at them. Don't all dogs bark at strangers? Do cops get an automatic license to kill any dog that they see just in case?

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Mary Kate Hallock arrived at her Oakland hills home after running errands Tuesday and found a blue note fluttering on her front door.

"Oakland police responded to your residence to investigate a burglar alarm," the handwritten note read. "While circling the rear perimeter, lab advanced on officers in a threatening manner before being shot and killed."

"Lab" was Gloria, an 11-year-old, arthritic yellow Labrador Hallock's family had owned since she was a puppy. Oakland police shot Gloria three times with a 40-caliber Glock handgun in the family's backyard while responding to a false burglar alarm at the property. The dog, police said, growled and barked at them.

Oakland police defended the shooting as a necessary action.

"My heart goes out to the family," said police spokesman Jeff Thomason. "We never want to go into a situation where we hurt a family pet, but in the course of doing our job, sometimes we have to make split-second decisions."

As officers circled the house, they saw the back door open and thought an intruder was inside, Thomason said. At that point, Gloria allegedly growled and barked at the officers, and one of the officers fired three rounds, all of which hit the dog - at least one in the head.

We Need a Free Market Economy

Texas Congressman Ron Paul explains the benefits of a true free market economy:

Free Markets Create Jobs

In this struggling economy it is essential for politicians to take a step back and think about what government has been doing to business in this country. In less than 200 years, the free market, property rights, and respect for the rule of law took this nation from a rough frontier to a global economic superpower. Today, however, our nation and our economy clearly are headed in the wrong direction.

Of course, America has never enjoyed absolute free-market capitalism: creeping government intrusion and special interest political patronage have existed and increased since our founding. But America historically has permitted free markets to operate with less government interference than other nations, while showing greater respect for property rights and the rule of law. Less government, respect for private property, and a relatively stable legal environment allowed America to become the wealthiest nation on earth.

By contrast, the poorest nations almost always demonstrate hostility for free markets, private property, and the rule of law. Capital formation, entrepreneurship, credit, and wealth accumulation are uniformly discouraged in poor countries. Private contracts are not reliably enforced, and private property is not secure in the hands of owners. The predictable result is widespread poverty and misery.

First and foremost, the role of government in business should be limited to resolving contractual disputes. As long as both parties of a contract enter into the arrangement willingly, without coercion, and with complete and accurate information, they should be expected to live up to their end of the deal. When a party cannot or will not honor the terms of a contract, it is acceptable for government to provide a court system to resolve disputes in a fair and impartial way.

Government should not dictate the terms of a contract to the parties involved. However, throughout the 20th century, our government became increasingly comfortable mandating terms that politicians find acceptable without regard to what businesses or their customers might want. This interference has had a chilling effect on the economy.

For example, government increases labor costs through minimum wage laws, union requirements, healthcare mandates, and various other stipulations that decrease a business’s capacity to hire as many employees as they might otherwise. And because they can only hire a few, they must reserve those spots only for top candidates. Thus, a teenager or a handicapped individual may miss out on job opportunities and work experience because of government-created job shortages. What if someone was willing to work for less than the government-mandated minimum wage, and a business was willing to give them a chance? Government makes this illegal, and both the business and the worker are worse off for it.

By contrast, business flourishes when government gets out of the way. One example is playing out in the 14th congressional district in Texas. A major multinational company, Caterpillar, is building an assembly facility in Victoria, Texas, rather than in one of the heavily unionized midwest states where it operates other plants. Texas, as a “right to work” state, offers more manageable labor costs. It also offers a more business-friendly regulatory landscape, and an overall lower tax burden with no corporate income tax. I am pleased that because of this, the people of Victoria will be rewarded with more job opportunities.

Freedom and a restrained government are what made us an economic power house. If we keep chasing businesses away with onerous taxes, mandates, and regulations, they will eventually leave. The best approach to our economic woes that will help the most people is simple: get back to the Constitution and demonstrate respect for free markets, private property, and the rule of law.

Government Lets House Burn Down

Comments from the Ludwig von Mises Institute on the house fire that South Fulton, Tenesee firefighters refused to fight:

A strange argument emerged overnight that illustrates how little even informed people understand about the market economy and its implications. This time the debate centers on a interesting case of a man in rural Tennessee who did not pay his fire-services fee, so the fire department let his house burn down. Here is the news report.

You can see that this incident is being used to attack libertarianism.

National Review’s Daniel Foster jumps in to say that this is why conservatives need to curb their enthusiasm for the market economy. A colleague in the “anarcho-capitalist” camp stuck his head into Daniel’s office to explain that fire protection is not a human right, so it makes sense that the house was allowed to burn. Paul Krugman (he never goes away) adds that this is a case against the market in general. “Do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?”

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

As it was, the fire burned down as a result of government policy, a refusal of service because the homeowners did not pay what amounted to a tax! The poor homeowner begged for help and offered to pay. He had paid the year before and the year before, so his credit was good. Even so, the bureaucracy refused! (The whole thing reminds me of a scene from Gangs of New York.)

A market doesn’t just mean fee-for-service. The government cannot mimic the marketplace by merely setting prices on its services. A free market means that producers are responsible to consumers in a world of private property and free exchange. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Robert Murphy gets it. So does David Henderson. Salon, meanwhile, writes up the news with a picture of Hayek next to a burning house.

Government Mules $78,000

Cobb County taxpayers are footing the bill for two mules because of a jackass decision made by County officials. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Cobb County taxpayers became the proud owners of two mules in August 2009.

County officials bought the animals to put them to work on a proposed historic farm, a living museum where schoolchildren would learn how farmers tilled the land a century ago.

But Cobb put the cart before the horse. Or rather, the mules before the farm.

Several key steps in the development of historic Hyde Farm had not been completed by the time the county bought the mules. More than a year later, some are still not resolved.

In the meantime, Cobb taxpayers have footed the bill for $78,000 on the mules in the past year — including purchase price, a caretaker, food and other expenses. With the cost rising, the county has been trying to sell the mules since June but has not found a buyer.

Then-Commission Chairman Sam Olens championed the purchase of the mules.

Olens said the county ran into unexpected delays, though the county’s top parks official said he warned Olens not to buy the mules.

“If you went up to me and said, ‘Look if you knew you were going to have these delays, would you have bought the mules?’ And the answer is absolutely no,” Olens said. “Of course we wouldn’t have.”

...Eddie Canon, the director of the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs Department, which is responsible for the mules and the Hyde Farm project, said he told Olens beforehand that his department did not have the money or staff to handle them.

“We told him we just didn’t think we were ready to have the mules yet,” Canon said.

County Manager David Hankerson confirmed that Canon expressed concerns. Both Hankerson and Canon said that Olens wanted to buy the mules anyway.

Olens, who has since stepped down to run for attorney general, said he recalled getting some “pushback” from Canon about Hyde Farm, but not the mules specifically. He said he believed that it stemmed from Canon’s lack of experience with historic farms and that, with a little creativity, the county could have easily absorbed the costs related to the mules.

A Little Too Much Pressure

The environmental organization 10:10 created the video below, but now has pulled it. You have to wonder what they were thinking.



The 10:10 organization now has this posted on their website:

Sorry.

Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure’.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website. We won't be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team

And for a different view on the environment here is George Carlin:

GOP Pansies

From Jack Hunter comments on the GOP's phony pledge:

The Republican Party has a history of using desperate times to call for drastic measures and when bailing out AIG, bolstering Medicare or bombing Iraq, that party has always been willing to go big and bold on some of the largest government expansions in this nation’s history. But what about cutting government? You know, that stuff GOP politicians always talk about during election time?

From the Contract with America in 1994 to the Pledge to America last week, the GOP has broken every contract or pledge it has ever made with conservatives. Now these same Republicans have made another empty promise, similar but even less appealing than the lies they’ve told in the past. This “pledge” is a joke.

When asked to give his take on the Pledge to America, Congressman Ron Paul stated the obvious on FOX Business, “I don’t hear enough precise things we would cut. I never hear that the military-industrial-complex should be addressed. I don’t ever hear that the discretionary and non-discretionary funding is all the same. I never hear which departments they really want to get rid of, so, it goes on and on and you just can’t have a little tinkering on the edges… as long as we want big government you can’t tinker with the edges.”

Full article here.